Different views of Church and State...

[ohio jones]

When the church believes it's power and purpose lie in the capacity to reform government or set the national discussion, it is very near the tipping point of irrelevance. From that point on it has nothing to offer that cannot be found in political organization. One factor that lubricates the transition is political success, winning political battles means joining forces with political power which further degrades moral authority. The mainline churches crossed this line sometime mid century and the Evangelicals crossed over in the period between Presidents G.W. Bush and Trump.

Let the weak say "I am strong"
-Joel 3:10

I would put the Evangelical crossover a generation earlier, in the early 1980s with Falwell and Reagan. Whatever the timing, though, there's no doubt the line has been crossed.

[barnhart]

When the church believes it's power and purpose lie in the capacity to reform government or set the national discussion, it is very near the tipping point of irrelevance. From that point on it has nothing to offer that cannot be found in political organization. One factor that lubricates the transition is political success, winning political battles means joining forces with political power which further degrades moral authority. The mainline churches crossed this line sometime mid century and the Evangelicals crossed over in the period between Presidents G.W. Bush and Trump.

Let the weak say "I am strong"
-Joel 3:10

I would put the Evangelical crossover a generation earlier, in the early 1980s with Falwell and Reagan. Whatever the timing, though, there's no doubt the line has been crossed.

Maybe so. I think it's fair to say through their political victories they have lost public moral authority and the ability to be salt and light on a national scale.

[joshuabgood]

When the church believes it's power and purpose lie in the capacity to reform government or set the national discussion, it is very near the tipping point of irrelevance. From that point on it has nothing to offer that cannot be found in political organization. One factor that lubricates the transition is political success, winning political battles means joining forces with political power which further degrades moral authority. The mainline churches crossed this line sometime mid century and the Evangelicals crossed over in the period between Presidents G.W. Bush and Trump.

Let the weak say "I am strong"
-Joel 3:10

I would put the Evangelical crossover a generation earlier, in the early 1980s with Falwell and Reagan. Whatever the timing, though, there's no doubt the line has been crossed.

I can see why you are saying this...however when I was at LU in the 90s Falwell was still saying that you should vote for the best person despite the party - I heard him say this myself. Sometime by the aughts, it became we must vote Republican because committee positions and chairmanships are at stake.

*There were still some conservative Democrats in the south in the 90s...so may be the partisanship wasn't quite as bad.

[JohnH]

When the church believes it's power and purpose lie in the capacity to reform government or set the national discussion, it is very near the tipping point of irrelevance. From that point on it has nothing to offer that cannot be found in political organization. One factor that lubricates the transition is political success, winning political battles means joining forces with political power which further degrades moral authority. The mainline churches crossed this line sometime mid century and the Evangelicals crossed over in the period between Presidents G.W. Bush and Trump.

Let the weak say "I am strong"
-Joel 3:10

I would put the Evangelical crossover a generation earlier, in the early 1980s with Falwell and Reagan. Whatever the timing, though, there's no doubt the line has been crossed.

Maybe so. I think it's fair to say through their political victories they have lost public moral authority and the ability to be salt and light on a national scale.

Would you agree that the rest of Christendom also has, or is this just confined to the Republican-leaning side?

[MattY]

Different views of Church and State...

The Reconstructionist view is that there is no neutrality in life: no neutral law, no religious neutrality, no divide between the secular and the sacred, no legitimate law outside of divine law, and no options in the entire sphere of human life other than God's way or man's way; therefore, all of society must be constructed according to God's law and there is no option for Christians to disengage from any sphere of society, nor to construct any type of religious order which will not eventually deny the religious liberty of God's enemies.

In this thread I would like to work on these definitions/positions more (and we could add a few more if necessary) to reflect the different schools of thought on church and state.

When we are finished, I would like if the positions would reflect both the stated and functional beliefs of the various theological positions. For example, I would want the average Evangelical to say, "Yes, that describes our beliefs."

My statement of the Reconstructionist view here is accurate for the Calvinist branch of Reconstructionism known as Theonomy. The charismatic version of Reconstructionism is known as the Seven Mountains Mandate, and holds that there are seven mountains of society that Christians should seek to dominate: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government. Believers can establish the kingdom of God on earth by fulfilling the mandate, completely transforming all of society.

Returning to Theonomy for a moment, this is a direct quote from one of its advocates, Gary North: "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Broadly speaking, Reconstructionism as a whole can perhaps be defined as follows: The belief that the Christians are obligated to try to bring all areas of society into conformity to Scripture, including government, which needs to return to biblical law and Judeo-Christian principles, while holding to the postmillennial expectation that Christians will win the world to Christ and advance God's kingdom in this way.

[Ernie]

I would put the Evangelical crossover a generation earlier, in the early 1980s with Falwell and Reagan. Whatever the timing, though, there's no doubt the line has been crossed.

Maybe so. I think it's fair to say through their political victories they have lost public moral authority and the ability to be salt and light on a national scale.

Would you agree that the rest of Christendom also has, or is this just confined to the Republican-leaning side?

I would say that any movement that gets involved in politics and particularly those show score political victories lose public moral authority and the ability to be salt and light on a national scale.

[Jazman]

When the church believes it's power and purpose lie in the capacity to reform government or set the national discussion, it is very near the tipping point of irrelevance. From that point on it has nothing to offer that cannot be found in political organization. One factor that lubricates the transition is political success, winning political battles means joining forces with political power which further degrades moral authority. The mainline churches crossed this line sometime mid century and the Evangelicals crossed over in the period between Presidents G.W. Bush and Trump.

Let the weak say "I am strong"
-Joel 3:10

Too your point and HKs before, the same thing will happen someday to the low-church/mega-churchy Evangelical cohort that now exercises the kind of cultural power that the mainline once did... many of them don't realize it yet... their mega-churches are full and the expansion projects are ongoing; their para-church or political orgs are flush with cash and influence... but someday they'll be as dead, as corpse like as the previous mainline coalition was.

[Jazman]

When the church believes it's power and purpose lie in the capacity to reform government or set the national discussion, it is very near the tipping point of irrelevance. From that point on it has nothing to offer that cannot be found in political organization. One factor that lubricates the transition is political success, winning political battles means joining forces with political power which further degrades moral authority. The mainline churches crossed this line sometime mid century and the Evangelicals crossed over in the period between Presidents G.W. Bush and Trump.

Let the weak say "I am strong"
-Joel 3:10

Part of that "irrelevance" starts when churches and Christians think they need to be "bear witness" or "speak truth to power", etc., to the government in a broad manner. It is a very short trip from there to actually participating in attempting to reform government. This is one of the reasons I think liberal-progressive Anabaptism has completely lost its way, yet I see the drift towards that kind of thinking lurking in the shadows in plain Anabaptism as well.

Fascinating... how would you then interpret the OT prophets?

And with this, "Part of that "irrelevance" starts when churches and Christians think they need to be "bear witness" or "speak truth to power", etc.," I see that if you believe those things, bearing witness/speak truth.." actions are at best irrelevant or maybe even bad... why you would then oppose things like the Black Church's civil rights movement or any anti-war movement or even verbalizing anything... I'm really tempted to ask where a recent moral issue activism by primarily Catholic/Evangelicals fits into your understanding... (A movement agenda that I believe you've spoken favorably of...) But that might derail the thread...

Ernie, to help me stay/get back on thread, could you state what you're looking for, and maybe make it personal for me; what I could add to your original intent from my Lanc Menno C context/perspective? (What I believe or what I think my church context believes?)

[Ernie]

Ernie, to help me stay/get back on thread, could you state what you're looking for, and maybe make it personal for me; what I could add to your original intent from my Lanc Menno C context/perspective? (What I believe or what I think my church context believes?)

Some subpoints under these categories could be helpful.

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p301800

[JohnL]

American Protestant: the duty of the church is to infiltrate and control the state to perform God's plan through it.

I'm coming late to this. It's only a few days and already 4 pages but it's been interesting to read them.
This definition of American Protestant might cover some of the larger churches especially if they're mainline Methodist or mainline Baptist megachurches. I think it's important to point out that it's a little too broad to pigeonhole ALL Protestants into this definition.
The little Baptist churches can swing pretty wide in their church and state views though especially if the little church is located in an area that was historically abused by the government. The post-civil war abuses of the federal government still linger in the memories of folks especially up in the hollers. The Regulators and Carpet Baggers were pretty cruel to families who sided with the South.
Because of all that history there's folks who plain don't trust the federal government or even the state governments. They keep themselves to themselves and have "no truck" with any government. Their churches will also be of the same mind and not trust the government. These little churches are more of a mind toward the member families instead of signing on to some big conference statement about the government coming from churches in other areas.